G.R. NO. 139618 - STEVENS N. FUENTES,VS. THE SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, on April 11, 1996, the Office of the Special Prosecutor, with the approval of then Ombudsman Desierto, filed with the Sandiganbayan an Information for violation of Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which reads: That on or about July 12, 1995, in Banga, Aklan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then the Municipal Mayor of Banga, Aklan, committing the crime herein in relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage of his official functions, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally cause the purchase of a 1,343 sq.m. parcel of land situated in Mangan, Banga, Aklan from one Teresita Sta. Maria Raco for and in consideration of the amount of PESOS: ONE HUNDRED FOURTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE (P114, 155.00), which contract or transaction is manifestly or gross disadvantageous to the government said accused knowing fully well that the said property has a fair market value of PESOS: TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY and 30/100 (P2,820.30) and a zonal value of PESOS: THIRTEEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY (P13,450.00). CONTRARY TO LAW. [4] On May 22, 1997, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or Reinvestigation. After hearing, the Office of the Special Prosecutor found that not all the elements of the offense charged are present. The Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion to Withdraw Information "for insufficiency of evidence." On August 17, 1998, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion, holding that: The motion at bar now is for the withdrawal of the information on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. As argued by the private complainant, however, quoting the Ombudsman, the offense for which the accused was charged "xxx is consummated upon the signing of the contract by the parties xxx." A perusal of the records would seem that this ground of insufficiency of evidence may not hold water. Besides, and more importantly, the matter of determining the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence, is best addressed to the Court after the prosecution has determined the existence of the prima facie case upon the filing of the Information. [5] On November 25, 1998, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the following grounds: (1) the facts as alleged do not constitute an offense; and (2) there is clearly no prima facie evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the accused. On April 26, 1999, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's Motion to Quash the Information, thus: Anent the first ground, that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, a cursory reading of the allegations in the Information clearly show that the facts alleged therein constitute an offense for violation of Sec. 3 (g), R.A. 3019. Anent the second ground that there is clearly no prima facie evidence against the accused, the same is evidentiary in nature and is not a ground for the quashal of an information. Besides